Syncretistic prayers with Muslims... any advice?

[jam070406]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity… But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…the Son of God is God and man…– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

 

[jam070406]

**Pope Pius II **
“Turn the anger of the Almighty against the godless Turks and Barbarians who despise Christ the Lord.”

It would appear that the Church has always held that Muslims did not know the one true God.

 

[Mickey]

It would appear that the Church has always held that Muslims did not know the one true God.

Yes. It would appear so.

Pope Leo X
…The Turks and other infidels…they treat the way of the light and salvation with contempt and totally unyielding blindness.

 

[Mickey]

“Mohammed was a disciple of the devil, and his followers are in a state of perdition.”
St. George of San Saba

 

[couponfit]

“Mohammed was a disciple of the devil, and his followers are in a state of perdition.”
St. George of San Saba

Sounds like they needs our prayers then.

 

[couponfit]

If people are scandalised by an act not of wrong doing, then they must ask themselves why a religious leader would do that in the first place? I don’t think this should cause any confusion at all. I first heard it a week before I saw this thread and frankly, I knew there was a perfectly good explanation for it. An act that is not morally wrong and can serve to produce more good fruit than confusion should not be condemned in my opinion.

I think that the matter has been over-flogged. This might be a good way to end:
Before the saducees came to meet jesus, he had said nothing publicly about their beliefs (or they wouldn’t have had to ask). It would have been assumed He took no stand on the matter. When they asked, however, He showed them the error of their beliefs calmly, telling them that they were quite mistaken. I love the way he replies. I think a similar case is before us. We can argue forever about it (like the pharisees and saducees did) or we could just let time and God be the judge about who is serving the one true God.
[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

I liked your explanation. God Bless.

 

[Mickey]

Sounds like they needs our prayers then.

Indeed.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Can you show me where the muslim statement from this council is binding on you?

I think I could, actually, but I confess I’d rather not, because that would water down the more important thing I wish I could convince you of: that this isn’t really even a teaching so much as a recognition of a logical consequence of transcendent monotheism’s validity…

If someone believes in one transcendent God, it makes no sense to say that that God is a false god, because, well, the real God is the only Real God and is truly transcendent.

Exactly! Because Muslims don’t know the one true God.

No, because the Qur’an teaches falsehoods and is not part of God’s revelation.

To accuse those, who correctly understand that there is but One True God and acknowledge that there are others who incorrectly think that there is a different god to the One True God, of “holding an intellectually primitive perspective… etc.” is in my view, disparaging.

But this very reply demonstrates the flawed thinking in this position! Muslims do not “think that there is a different god to the One True God…” they believe that there is only One True God. Don’t you see that belief in God + belief in falsehoods about Him constitutes an erroneous understanding of God, rather than belief in some other deity (whose existence is metaphysically impossible if you truly understand monotheism…)?

I see no mention of Rinnie in the post highlighted. Therefore it must be Mickey…

You didn’t mention Mickey “in the post highlighted,” either. And in my reply that you called uncharitable, I mentioned *both *Rinnie and Mickey, so yeah, I was confused.

Your statement about papal authority and Catholic teaching being “wasted” (my word) on Mickey, on the basis that he is not a Roman Catholic, and indeed consistent in rejecting what the pope says, is in my view both uncharitable and to a degree derogatory. Mickey is indeed consistent in saying he does not agree with the notion that Muslims worship the One True God, and is entitled to express that belief without being castigated. I too dispute this assertion.

I wasn’t castigating him at all. Orthodox Christians believe that Rome has left Holy Orthodoxy. That may be painful for us to hear, but it is not inherently uncharitable for them to believe it, and thus it is not uncharitable for others to acknowledge it. There would be absolutely *nothing *inconsistent or prideful about Mickey’s rejecting a pope’s teaching on something.

But polytheism does not enter into the debate. We (Christians) do not acknowledge the possibility of another God. However that is not to say that others may hold that the god they present to us is the one True God and even give their god the name “the God of Abraham”. But however much they ascribe a name to something it does not make it what it plainly is not…

The old Catholic Encyclopedia, which was written in 1910, decades before Vatican II and at the height of the Church’s reaction against modernism, has this to say about Islam:

The doctrines of Islam concerning God — His unity and Divine attributes — are essentially those of the Bible. Citation here

In simple terms Muslims draw their tradition, doctrine, faith and belief from the revelations contained within the Koran, revelations, which you acknowledge do not come from God, that come from Allah via Gabriel(?) and Mohammed and claim further that Allah is the one true God. If, as you say, the Koran did not come from God, how can you justify saying that Muslims worship the One True God when they worship Allah as their one true god and label him the “God of Abraham”

Remember that “Allah” is the Arabic word for “God.” You are using “Allah” as if it is a name, when it is not. It rather identifies the monotheistic concept of God; thus, Arabic-speaking Christians pray to “Allah” as well.

In any case, the Qur’an did not give to Muslims their dogma of transcendent theism. They got that from, well, transcendent theism. Which came into the world through Judaism.

As regards the notion that this teaching of the Church is binding on all I would point out that history proves that popes have erred in the past and that some errors stood for centuries before being corrected.

This is not a teaching that comes from a pope, though. Its source is a council, and given that the quotation I have provided is from Lumen Gentium, which is a “Dogmatic Constitution” - the most authoritative type of document Vatican II promulgated - and which actually does offer definitive teaching on theological matters (in this case, on ecclesiology and collegiality) rather than mere pastoral guidance… I’d say the burden of proof is on those who claim its contents are not universally binding.

In other words the teachings of the false prophet came from their god, Allah.

Muhammad is a false prophet… and his teachings did not come from God.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

My apologies jakasaki but I’m a bit of a technophobe and I have not fathomed out yet how to not quote the whole post when I only wish to quote certain elements. Bear with me and pray for me then I will get there

Peace be with you
Francis

I don’t mind reading your replies the way they are, but if you want help, I think I can tell you how to quote just part of a post.

Click the “quote” button, and use manual deleting, cutting (control-c) and pasting (control-v) to separate the different parts you wish to respond to.

Each chunk of text that you’re responding to should end with and begin with the part in brackets that precedes the first quote on the page; copying and pasting the part in brackets is the easiest way to do this.

If you’re still having trouble and my explanation is bad, don’t worry, Francis, no problem; I don’t mind reading your replies the way they are!

 

[Mickey]

I think I could, actually, but I confess I’d rather not,

Give it a try.

If someone believes in one transcendent God, it makes no sense to say that that God is a false god, because, well, the real God is the only Real God and is truly transcendent.

If somebody does not believe in Jesus Christ…he hast not the Father. One can proclaim belief in “one transcendent god” all day long…ut it does not mean they are praying to the God of Abraham.

Sura 4:171 (Koran)– Allah forbid that he should have a son!

1 John 2:23 (Douay-Rheims)–Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Give it a try.

I’d rather not, for the reason I gave before: I don’t want this to be viewed as an additional “teaching” rather than as a recognition of the logical consequence of what we already believe about the nature of God.

If somebody does not believe in Jesus Christ…he hast not the Father.

Trust me, we agree. We’re not talking about knowing - in a relationship sense - the Father, or having a salvific relationship with Father. We’re merely saying that - regardless of their prayers’ efficacy or lack thereof - that it is the One True God to whom Muslims intend to direct their prayers and worship, and that they are of the opinion that the only real God is the very same one Who revealed Himself to Abraham.

 

[jam070406]

Give it a try.
If somebody does not believe in Jesus Christ…he hast not the Father. One can proclaim belief in “one transcendent god” all day long…ut it does not mean they are praying to the God of Abraham.

Sura 4:171 (Koran)– Allah forbid that he should have a son!

1 John 2:23 (Douay-Rheims)–Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.

Exactly.
And as the Church teaches:

Faith, therefore, as “a gift of God” and as “a supernatural virtue infused by him”, 19 involves a dual adherence: to God who reveals and to the truth which he reveals, out of the trust which one has in him who speaks. Thus, “we must believe in no one but God: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”.

 

[jam070406]

I’d rather not, for the reason I gave before: I don’t want this to be viewed as an additional “teaching” rather than as a recognition of the logical consequence of what we already believe about the nature of God.

Trust me, we agree. We’re not talking about knowing - in a relationship sense - the Father, or having a salvific relationship with Father. We’re merely saying that - regardless of their prayers’ efficacy or lack thereof - that it is the One True God to whom Muslims intend to direct their prayers and worship, and that they are of the opinion that the only real God is the very same one Who revealed Himself to Abraham.

And the Truth is they do not. They do not have Faith which is proven by their denial of the Trinity. Like Mickey said belief in one God does not equal belief in the one True God.

 

[Mickey]

I’d rather not,

That is up to you. I will hold, (as will most Latin Catholics) , the it is not binding fo for you to believe that Christians and Muslims both pray to the God of Abraham.

and that they are of the opinion that the only real God is the very same one Who revealed Himself to Abraham.

They are of the opinion that the the God of Abraham has nothing to do with Jesus Christ…this is not the God of Abraham…this is not the Triune God…therefore they have no intention whatsoever to pray to the Triune God…and hence they are not praying to the God of Abraham.

 

[jam070406]

I think I could, actually, but I confess I’d rather not, because that would water down the more important thing I wish I could convince you of: that this isn’t really even a teaching so much as a recognition of a logical consequence of transcendent monotheism’s validity…

If someone believes in one transcendent God, it makes no sense to say that that God is a false god, because, well, the real God is the only Real God and is truly transcendent.

No, because the Qur’an teaches falsehoods and is not part of God’s revelation.

But this very reply demonstrates the flawed thinking in this position! Muslims do not “think that there is a different god to the One True God…” they believe that there is only One True God. Don’t you see that belief in God + belief in falsehoods about Him constitutes an erroneous understanding of God, rather than belief in some other deity (whose existence is metaphysically impossible if you truly understand monotheism…)?

You didn’t mention Mickey “in the post highlighted,” either. And in my reply that you called uncharitable, I mentioned *both *Rinnie and Mickey, so yeah, I was confused.

I wasn’t castigating him at all. Orthodox Christians believe that Rome has left Holy Orthodoxy. That may be painful for us to hear, but it is not inherently uncharitable for them to believe it, and thus it is not uncharitable for others to acknowledge it. There would be absolutely *nothing *inconsistent or prideful about Mickey’s rejecting a pope’s teaching on something.

The old Catholic Encyclopedia, which was written in 1910, decades before Vatican II and at the height of the Church’s reaction against modernism, has this to say about Islam:

The doctrines of Islam concerning God — His unity and Divine attributes — are essentially those of the Bible. Citation here

Remember that “Allah” is the Arabic word for “God.” You are using “Allah” as if it is a name, when it is not. It rather identifies the monotheistic concept of God; thus, Arabic-speaking Christians pray to “Allah” as well.

In any case, the Qur’an did not give to Muslims their dogma of transcendent theism. They got that from, well, transcendent theism. Which came into the world through Judaism.

This is not a teaching that comes from a pope, though. Its source is a council, and given that the quotation I have provided is from Lumen Gentium, which is a “Dogmatic Constitution” - the most authoritative type of document Vatican II promulgated - and which actually does offer definitive teaching on theological matters (in this case, on ecclesiology and collegiality) rather than mere pastoral guidance… I’d say the burden of proof is on those who claim its contents are not universally binding.

Muhammad is a false prophet… and his teachings did not come from God.

We are not bound to believe Muslims worship the same God.
We are bound to believe “those that acknowledge the Creator” (Trinity)
And those Muslims that profess the Faith of Abraham. The Church teaches that only those who profess the Trinity have the gift of Faith. The section from LG deals with those that have not heard the Gospel. Those Muslims that adore the one true God are those that have converted to the Christian God, after having heard and accepted the Gospel.
Of course we would hold them esteem because they may suffer martyrdom from living in hostile anti-Christian lands.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

That is up to you. I will hold, (as will most Latin Catholics) , the it is not binding fo for you to believe that Christians and Muslims both pray to the God of Abraham.

Understood. I accept this as a consequence of my refusal to attempt to show that it is binding on Catholics. As I said, I will not risk giving in to the impression that this is in fact a “teaching” at all rather than simply a recognition of a state of affairs.

We are not bound to believe Muslims worship the same God. Those Muslims that adore the one true God are those that have converted to the Christian God, after having heard and accepted the Gospel.

Whatever. That’s not what it says, and you know it. Lumen Gentium states, as I have already quoted at least three times, “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who … along with us adore the one and merciful God.”

“amongst [those who acknowledge the Creator] there are the Mohammedans.”

 

[jam070406]

Understood. I accept this as a consequence of my refusal to attempt to show that it is binding on Catholics. As I said, I will not risk giving in to the impression that this is in fact a “teaching” at all rather than simply a recognition of a state of affairs.

Whatever. That’s not what it says, and you know it. Lumen Gentium states, as I have already quoted at least three times, “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who … along with us adore the one and merciful God.”

“amongst [those who acknowledge the Creator] there are the Mohammedans.”

The plan of salvation is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Gospel.

The Creator is the Holy Trinity.

Those that accept Jesus and acknowledge the Trinity adore the one true God with us because they have received and accepted the gift of Faith and are now Christian.

Pretty simple.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Those that accept Jesus and acknowledge the Trinity adore the one true God with us because they have received and accepted the gift of Faith and are now Christian.

The conventional definition of “Mohammedan” - the word the Council used - definitely excludes belief in Jesus as the Son of God and the Savior. Yet the Council stated unequivocally that “Mohammedans” acknowledge the Creator and adore the one merciful God, with no mention of the condition you attach ("if they “accept Jesus and acknowledge the Trinity”).

I think you also need to realize that this does not constitute an approval of Islamic teaching or practice.

 

[jam070406]

The conventional definition of “Mohammedan” - the word the Council used - definitely excludes belief in Jesus as the Son of God and the Savior. Yet the Council stated unequivocally that “Mohammedans” acknowledge the Creator and adore the one merciful God, with no mention of the condition you attach ("if they “accept Jesus and acknowledge the Trinity”).

I think you also need to realize that this does not constitute an approval of Islamic teaching or practice.

The document Dominus Iesus was written specifically to clear up ambiguities and relativistic errors that have been drawn from those texts and do damage to the Catholic Faith. Faith in the one true God is belief in the Trinity. Muslims reject the Trinity therefore, do not have Faith in the one true God. They have belief, NOT FAITH, in a deity that derives only from their false religion.

 

[boleyn2010]

I
No, because the Qur’an teaches falsehoods and is not part of God’s revelation.
Yes, because they believe the Qur’an comes from God

But this very reply demonstrates the flawed thinking in this position! Muslims do not “think that there is a different god to the One True God…” they believe that there is only One True God. Don’t you see that belief in God + belief in falsehoods about Him constitutes an erroneous understanding of God, rather than belief in some other deity (whose existence is metaphysically impossible if you truly understand monotheism…)?
This reply shows your flawed understanding of my position. I did not suggest here that Muslims think there is a different god to the One True God. In this matter I was using rather more generalisation in an effort to help you understand.
And yes I do understand Monotheism. No other deity exists. Simple.!
Remember that “Allah” is the Arabic word for “God.” You are using “Allah” as if it is a name, when it is not. It rather identifies the monotheistic concept of God; thus, Arabic-speaking Christians pray to “Allah” as well.
*
The subject of “Allah” as used by Christians today has been covered in previous posts of mine, and no slight is or was intended. However I dispute your assertion that “Allah” is the Arabic word for “God” in the context of the Koran. In Arabic and Islamic use the term Allah was a contraction of el ilah i.e. “god” and was in common use in the pre-islamic pantheon. Mohammed introduced the term “Allah” to represent a “high god”.
Allah is not an Arabic word in origin as it is borrowed from Assyrian.
**
In any case, the Qur’an did not give to Muslims their dogma of transcendent theism. They got that from, well, transcendent theism. Which came into the world through Judaism*

Which Mohammed “borrowed” and passed on to his followers via the Koran…
**
Muhammad is a false prophet… and his teachings did not** come from God.
Precisely. They come from “allah” via “gabriel”. God does not enter into it.